“Ignore what I do, instead Believe What I say.”
– Dr. David Brown
(The Real Questions Dr. David Brown Should Answer at the ODA Webinar)
Does the President of the ODA, Dr. David Brown, and the current Board of Directors have any credibility left?
On April 17, 2026, the ODA sent an email inviting Ontario dentists to a webinar on April 22, Dr. David Brown is promoting the webinar as:
“Ask Us Anything: Your Questions. Real Answers.”
The email promised:
“more opportunities to connect directly with ODA leadership…”
“you can hear directly from ODA leadership and get your questions answered…”
“looking for clarity on decision-making, or want to share what matters most in your community…” “open the floor for your questions.”
That sounds encouraging.
But there is a difference between answering pre-arranged, planted, comfortable questions and answering the real questions that reveal the truth about what is happening inside the ODA.
And right now, truth matters more than ever.
Most Ontario dentists and most General Councillors have lost confidence in the current ODA. They are not asking for polished messaging. They are asking for transparency, accountability, responsible use of member dues, fair treatment of dissenting voices, and an ODA that serves frontline dentists rather than protecting insiders.
If the ODA is healthy, transparent, and member-focused, then hard questions should be welcomed.
If the ODA is dysfunctional, defensive, and controlled by insiders, then hard questions will be filtered, softened, avoided, or replaced with friendly questions that support the current leadership narrative.
So, below are the real questions Dr. David Brown should answer publicly.
Not with slogans.
Not with “we are doing great.” Not with “trust us.”
With facts.
Because if these questions are avoided, filtered, or replaced with friendly pre-selected questions, the webinar will not restore confidence.
It will confirm why confidence has been lost.
1. Were you formerly asked to resign as ODA President?
The truth:
In January 2026, via a formal 13-page document signed by multiple ODA Board of Directors, requested the resignation of the ODA President, Dr. David Brown.
Why dentists should care:
This is not a normal Board disagreement. In the ODA’s 160-year history, this is the first time an ODA President has been formally asked to resign. The 13-page document lays out a disturbing pattern of governance and leadership failures by Dr. David Brown and raises serious concerns about whether he has been acting in the best interests of Ontario dentists.
A real answer should include:
A direct yes or no to: Were you, Dr. David Brown, formally asked to resign as ODA President?
Dentists may not need every internal detail, but they deserve to know whether their President was formally asked to resign, whether the motion to remove him was considered, and the broad categories of concern raised.
2. How much did the CEO salary cover-up cost ODA members?
The truth:
The ODA brought in a Human Resources consultant to advise the Board. The advice was clear: CEO salary disclosure is best practice in association management. The consultant also confirmed that every Board member should have access to the CEO’s employment contract because the CEO is the Board’s sole employee.
Instead of following that advice, the ODA set aside $300,000 of members’ money to investigate how the CEO’s salary became known.
Staff were interrogated. A law firm was hired. A long-standing ODA volunteer was intimidated and threatened. And Dr. Brown personally threatened a member in writing with “termination of your membership in the ODA.”
Why?
Because the real issue is not simply the reported $426,000 CEO salary.
The real issue is what else is included in the CEO’s total compensation, and whether that compensation can be justified to the dentists paying for it.
Why dentists should care:
This is about priorities.
Dentists pay ODA dues to support advocacy, member services, and the profession.
They do not pay dues, so the ODA can spend members’ money protecting secrecy, intimidating volunteers, or covering up compensation information that dentists have a right to know.
If even part of the reported $300,000 was spent on this, every ODA dentist deserves an explanation.
A real answer should include:
A direct answer to: How much did the CEO salary cover-up cost ODA members?
How much money was spent? How much staff time was used? Who approved the $300,000? Was the full Board consulted? What was the investigator’s mandate? Which members were threatened?
And when will Dr. Brown apologize to the colleague who was unfairly targeted and threatened with loss of ODA membership?
3. Did you obstruct a whistleblower’s concern regarding significant governance failures from being independently investigated?
The truth:
One of the most basic safeguards in any organization, including the ODA, is a Whistleblower Policy. It exists because serious concerns about misconduct, misuse of resources, retaliation, conflicts of interest, or governance failure often come from people inside the organization who may be afraid to speak openly.
The Whistleblower Policy is supposed to create a protected process so concerns can be raised without fear of punishment, and so the people being questioned do not control the investigation.
Serious concerns have been raised through the Whistleblower Policy about ODA governance failures, which were obstructed and controlled by Dr. David Brown, Dr. Janet Leith, and CEO Frank Bevilacqua, rather than being sent to an independent investigation like the Whistleblower Policy mandates.
Why dentists should care:
Whistleblower protection exists so people can raise serious concerns without fear of retaliation or cover-up.
If Board members or staff cannot safely raise concerns inside the ODA, then the ODA has a much deeper problem than “communication.”
It means the system is protecting leadership instead of protecting members.
A real answer should include:
A direct yes or no to: Were whistleblower concerns about serious governance failures raised?
If yes, who received them? Who decided how they would be handled? Was a truly independent investigation launched? If not, why not?
Dr. Brown should also explain whether any attempt was made to block, delay, narrow, control, or dismiss those concerns, and whether these issues may now need to be addressed outside the ODA, including through legal channels.
4. Dr. Brown, why will you not answer real questions?
The truth:
Because real questions expose the truth and the pattern. They expose who benefits.
Who gets protected? Who gets punished?
Who controls information? Who spends member money? Who gets promoted?
Who gets silenced?
Comfortable questions allow the ODA to talk about “connection,” “leadership,” “governance,” and “moving forward.”
Real questions force the ODA to explain why friends and insiders are protected while forward-thinking dentists, reform-minded Board members, and concerned General Councillors are treated as the problem.
That is why real questions are dangerous to those currently in power..
They do not just expose decisions. They expose loyalties.
Why dentists should care:
Dentists are busy. Most do not have time to follow ODA politics closely. That makes it easy for leadership to hide behind polished updates and carefully managed messaging.
But the ODA’s culture is revealed by what it rewards, tolerates, and protects. If the ODA avoids the real questions, dentists should ask why.
Is it protecting members?
Or is it protecting friends?
A real answer should include:
A commitment to publish every question submitted for the webinar.
A commitment to answer the hardest questions first, not the safest ones.
A commitment to stop filtering member concerns through people whose reputations are being questioned.
And a direct explanation for why questions about resignation, whistleblowers, CEO compensation, legal spending, retaliation, and Board dysfunction are not being answered openly.
Because “Ask Us Anything” only means something if the ODA is willing to answer what it does not want to be asked.
5. Have you forgotten that the best interests of ODA members come before your best interests and those of your friends?
Dr. Brown’s loyalty problem is no longer theoretical. It is a pattern.
Dr. Brown not only voted for the promotion of Dr. Edward Busvek for the next ODA Vice-President. He also promoted it and convinced other board members to support it, despite a public record that raised serious questions about judgment, credibility, and reputational risk. The ODA Board “saw the public record” and promoted him anyway.
Then there is Dr. Jonathan Mayer.
Hundreds of dentists and concerned members of the public signed a petition raising serious concerns about Dr. Mayer’s public social media activity, professionalism, judgment, and ability to represent the ODA, especially in dealings with government and diverse communities. The petition warned that his conduct posed a reputational risk to all dentists and undermined the ODA’s duty to fairly represent all ODA members.
Yet again, Dr. Brown protected the insider. Again, you supported and promoted your friend, and convinced other board members to do the same. On April 6, 2026, you voted to reaffirm him as President-Elect for 2026-27
So dentists need to ask the obvious question:
When the reputation of Ontario dentists conflicts with protecting a friend, why does Dr. Brown keep choosing the friend?
Why dentists should care:
This is not about one person. It is about the culture at the top of the ODA. A healthy Board asks:
What is in the best interests of Ontario dentists?
A dysfunctional Board asks:
Who is our friend? Who protects our group? Who helps us keep control?
When critics are attacked, dissenters are punished, reformers are roadblocked, and insiders are protected, the ODA ceases to function as a member association.
It becomes a protection system for friends.
A real answer should include:
A direct answer to: Why did you support or protect ODA insiders despite serious reputational concerns?
Dr. Brown should explain why Dr. Busvek was promoted despite his public record, why Dr. Mayer was protected despite widespread concern, and how either decision served the best interests of ODA members.
He should also identify one meaningful example where he put transparency, accountability, and the reputation of Ontario dentists ahead of loyalty to friends.
Because saying “we act in the best interests of members” means nothing if every difficult decision protects the same people.
6. Why are ODA member dues being used like a loyalty rewards program?
The truth:
Just one recent example:
Dr. Brown, CEO Frank Bevilacqua, and their spouses! And some of the most loyal Board insiders (Brock Nicolucci, Daniel Subbotin, Sara Worth, and others) attended The Pacific Dental Conference in Vancouver, March 5–7, 2026, as a “work trip.”
ODA member-dentists dues paid for all the travel expenses: flights, food and high-end hotel accommodations. On top of that, Dr. Brown paid himself $2,200 per day.
This is not an isolated concern.
There is a larger pattern: expensive dinners, retreats, travel, hotels, per diems, and perks that reward loyalty, strengthen insider relationships, and maintain control.
Frontline dentists work hard for their money.
Why is so much of it being spent on the comfort, status, and networking of the same people already protecting each other?
Why dentists should care:
ODA dues are not a personal expense account.
They are supposed to support advocacy, member services, professional support, and the best interests of Ontario dentists.
When leadership spends member money on luxury travel, expensive hotels, generous per diems, and insider “work trips,” dentists deserve to know whether the spending benefits members or simply rewards the people closest to power.
This is about priorities.
Every dollar spent on insider perks is a dollar not spent serving dentists.
A real answer should include:
A direct answer to: How much did the March 5–7 convention trip cost ODA members?
Who attended? Were spouses’ costs paid or subsidized? What hotel was used? What rooms were booked? What flights, meals, transportation, and per diems were paid? How much did Dr. Brown personally receive?
Dr. Brown should also provide a three-year breakdown of Board travel, dinners, retreats, hotels, rental cars, planning sessions, and per diems.
And he should explain why members should see this spending as serving Ontario dentists, rather than rewarding insiders and protecting loyalty.
Conclusion: The Webinar Is the Test
This webinar is not a test of whether Dr. Brown can answer friendly questions. It is a test of whether he can answer the questions he does not want asked.
Because the pattern is now clear:
A President asked to resign. A CEO salary cover-up.
A whistleblower’s concern was obstructed. Friends protected.
Critics punished.
Member dues used to reward insiders. Real questions avoided.
Dr. Brown can talk about transparency. But transparency is not what leaders say.
Transparency is what they are willing to answer.
If these questions are filtered, softened, ignored, or replaced with friendly planted questions, that tells dentists everything they need to know.
The ODA does not belong to the President. It does not belong to the CEO.
It does not belong to insiders protecting insiders. The ODA belongs to Ontario dentists.
And if Dr. Brown cannot answer these questions openly, honestly, and directly, then the answer is already clear: He no longer deserves their trust.
5 Responses
It’s not fair to paint Daniel Subbotin in that manner. He was at the PDC as a scout for the ODA ASM. He’s a buddy of mine and I’d call him out if he was in the wrong but to paint him as a slug is not fair to him. He does suck as a golfer however.
Who is Daniel Subbotin.Staff or dentist?.What exactly was he doing at the PDC besides waisting our members funds?
The questions in this article need to be answered. I’ve been an ODA member for over 25 years and find the content of these articles to be well written and informative. I’m also pleased to see that comments are not being censored. Open dialogue is essential.
I’m hoping someone can answer these questions. Is it normal for spouses/common law partners of scouts to go to conventions? Does the ODA pay for the travel costs, hotel rooms and meals? In this case the common law partner is also on the ODA’s board of directors so do they get paid a per diem for attending the PDC convention like the ODA president: Dr. Brown does? How much is the per diem and what value is their attendance to the membership?
Also can someone please explain why the ODA is scouting and what value it is to the ASM and the members? I have noticed in the age of online courses, everyone knows who the good speakers are. Interesting that the quality of the speakers has not been as great at the ASM as it used to be: the ASM just doesn’t attract well known speakers anymore. Maybe the ODA needs to suspend these questionable scouting missions and instead put the money towards paying for good speakers like Gordon Christensen? That would be of better value to the membership.
With the cost of airfare going up due to high fuel costs, it looks like these scouting missions are becoming more like a paid vacation for the scouts of the Education Committee. How many scouts and spouses go to these conventions?
All good organizations examine the ROI for members on all services and I hope the board and the CEO: Mr. Bevilacqua do as well. The members pay a lot for our membership fees and we are looking for responsible stewardship of our dues.
Didn’t he allow CEO Frank Bevilacqua and in house legal counsel Dan Fabiano collude to plant pre arranged questions at General Council as revealed in a confidential email – and then lie and try to deny it? Absolutely unacceptable. This Board does not seem to have the ethical standard to know when to resign. First David Brown and then Jonathan Mayer. Disgusting!
I am curious as to how much of this will continue to be accepted, and tolerated by our membership …what point does a plan come into play and the board becomes dissolved?
This is not unlike what is happening south of the border with you know who